ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report

  • To: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>, <gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report
  • From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 17:41:16 -0400

Kristina:  Thanks for pulling all of this together.  What's the
process/deadline for comments to this draft?  Jon



From: owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 5:31 PM
To: gnso-pro-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-pro-wg] Current Draft of Report



Attached is the current draft of the report.  Here's what changed since
last night's version. 

Added Kelly's Introduction. 

Added definitions.  I used the definitions I suggested this morning
minus my subsequent revision to RPM.  I indicated that there has not
been discussion of the Rights of Others section.

Created a fee-specific section in Outcomes.   All fee-related principles
and proposals are here.  Intro makes clear there are no levels of

Created a new RPM section in Outcomes.  All new RPM proposals (Peter's,
Mike's, and mine) are here.  Intro makes clear that there's been no
decision and there's outstanding work.

Classified all other proposals as Agreement, Support, Alternative View.
I used the following methodology.  I started with the chart I circulated
last night and re-characterized the levels of support based on the
postings today.  If only one person objected to a proposal, I
characterized the support as Agreement.  If only one person objected to
a proposal and provided their own suggestion, I characterized support
for the original proposal as Agreement and identified the objector's
suggestion as Alternative View.  I characterized the level of support as
Agreement ONLY if there was unanimity OR there was only one objection.
Please check these carefully.  Any mischaracterizations ARE NOT
intentional.  (Avri, I integrated your comments in #16 in way that I
think you would find agreeable.  Please check 4.2.5))  Finally, I listed
in Outstanding work everything that had not been substantively discussed
and/or had not resulted in level of support.


The report needs formatting clean-up as the spacing and may not be
consistent.  I also did not change New RPM Proposals to reflect
agreed-upon terms.  I'm sure there's something that I did or did not do
that is not mentioned here.  Any and all omissions are unintentional.


<<05172007 GNSO PRO WG draft report - SCRUBBED on 05-17-07 17_29.DOC>> 

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy